Cindy King v. Townsend, Town of (SPR 20251533)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 12, 2025 SPR25/1533 Harrison C. Mayotte Town Clerk Town of Townsend 272 Main Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Mr. Mayotte: I have received the petition of Cindy King appealing the response of the Town of Townsend (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 14, 2025, Ms. King requested: …copies of the following emails received by [an identified individual] ([an identified email address]) including attachments: From: [an identified individual] – 1/13/2025 approximately 3:02pm [an identified email address] – 2/4/2025 approximately 10:36am [an identified email address] – 2/20/2025 approximately 3:08pm also requesting any forwarding history of these emails. The Town responded on May 30, 2025, assigning the request reference number PRR 2025-0094. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. King petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1533, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR25/1533 Page 2 June 12, 2025 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s May 30th Response Before the Town responded, Ms. King stated to the Town on May 30, 2025, “I am filing an appeal on this request. I further request that the server be the responder on this request. This request is past due. It is clear that [an identified individual] has no intention of responding. Request that this email PRR be from the server…” In its May 30, 2025 response, the Town stated: [1] To confirm that the Town understands correctly, you are looking for the emails you listed in your original request (attached), in their native format (including attachments) and as stored on the Town’s email system. Can you clarify that you are not looking for copies that CC’d recipients received, but rather the original sent to [an identified email address]? [2] The Town intends to provide a response, and has been actively searching to fulfill your request in the time since you submitted your request. Further, as to the substance of the OML complaint submitted on 1/9/2025, [an identified individual] has informed me that discussion of the complaint will be placed on the June 17th, 2025 agenda for discussion. In reply to the Town’s response on the same date, Ms. King stated, “I have not changed my original request in any way… The server request is simply common sense and not a new request. When it was clear that [an identified individual] was not going to cooperate with the request, the server should have been checked… You can and should continue to search for the emails including the forwarding history - as requested…” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. King states: I have not received the requested documents. I have been told verbally… that [an identified individual] can’t find them in her email account. This request should be

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR25/1533 Page 3 June 12, 2025 easily fulfilled… This type of request should be sent to the IT Department if the email recipient is uncooperative. They should be resident on the server even if they had been deleted by [an identified individual]. It is important to note that I am also requesting any forwarding history of the emails. These emails are part of an OML Complaint and includes correspondence from the Mass AGO. It is unlikely that they were not received. Ms. King provided this office with following supplemental information on June 2, 2025: The 3 emails requested I know for a fact exist. I am only seeking specifically the received emails by [an identified email address] and any forwarding actions taken by [an identified email address]. The RAO did not respond to my request within the 10 days and then advised me that [an identified individual] “couldn’t find them” despite me providing the exact times they were sent to her. I was not asked for an extension of time for the search. The town uses a server for their IT. The emails should be available to the administrator of the server… The RAO also replied that my request was not clear. I disagree. My request clearly states what I sought and continue to seek... In a telephone call between the Town and this office on June 2, 2025, the Town stated that based on its correspondence with Ms. King, it received the clarification necessary to process the request. The Town further stated that it intends to fully respond to the request in the coming days by providing the responsive records. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. King’s request was submitted on May 14, 2025, and the Town has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Town has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR25/1533 Page 4 June 12, 2025 the Town has confirmed it intends to fully respond and provide responsive records in the coming days, I find that to the extent possible, the Town must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. King with a response to the request provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. King may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cindy King